The Review, Vol. III, Issue 3 (2018)

Volume III, Issue 3

The Hotchkiss

Review

Confronting

CHINA

“We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves.”

– John Locke

Contents

4

Confronting China Through Free Trade

16 New Constitution Analysis

7

Cooperation, not Confrontation

18 Privatizing the NYC Subway

8

9

Ian Gill ’19 and Huy Do ’18

Alex Xu ’19

In Defence of Democratic Shutdown Sam Charlton ’20

Murderers, Rapists Don’t Derserve Our Prisons: Give Firing Squad a Shot Nicholas Fleisher ’18

10 Net Neutrality is Dead, Now What?

Jiahua Chen ’20

12 The Case for A Strong Border James Horrocks ’19

Edward Guo ’19

Tatr Assakul ’18

20 South Korea Can’t Always Be the Nice Guy Alex McLane ’20

22 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

Underappreciated, but Successful Leo Poggi ’20

24 Trump and Big Oil Carolyn Ren ’19

25 Can India resist China’s Hegemony in Asia?

Brian Wong ’19

13 Life, Liberty, and LSD

26 Why Nations Fail

14 Guns: The Bad and The Ugly

28 On Syria and National Security

Miles O’Reilly ’19

Nevada Lee ’18

David Vega ’20

Meredith Moran ’19

Confronting China Through Free Trade

By Ian Gill ’19 and Huy Do ’18

I

n the 21st century, China has come to the forefront of world politics, positioning herself as a global trade and military power. In fact, following the election of President Trump and America’s withdrawal from quintessential trade agreements, China is now attempting to extend its influence abroad even further, implementing a wide range of economic and diplomatic policies, most notably the One Belt One Road Initiative and the Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea, in an extensive scheme to overthrow the US as the dominant global power. With such an understanding, the United States must engage in an aggressive diplomatic strategy, strengthening trade partnerships with allies around the world to counter the imminent Chinese threat to re-fortify her global standing. While it would be naive to think that the US and China are fated to military escalations, America must still prepare for an attack on her global standing.

Although many hope that the US would collaborate with China to mediate a stable global community, such dreams are wildly unrealistic. The US must cooperate in fields such as anti-terrorism, trafficking, and environmental protection, yet it must recognize that China and America are fundamentally different, and in fact, opposing. The US is a representative republic built upon the virtues of individual rights.

China, on the other hand, thrives upon a 4

one-party oligarchy that systematically denies human rights, including the freedom of speech and association. China does not perceive the American view towards individual rights with high regard, causing fundamental disagreements at the roots of their ideologies. In order to nurture a comprehensive partnership between the two nations, one must sacrifice its mores, and any sacrifice by the US would antithesize her founding liberal ideals. Yet due to China’s aggressive policies, America, as a global economic and ideological leader, must respond with utter urgency.

In 2008, 12 countries in Asia and the Americas, including the US, began negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that would create an American-led economic blockade towards China. After years of negotiations, all participatory nations signed the TPP in 2016, only for President Trump to withdraw from the deal upon his arrival to the White House the following year. With such an abrupt exit, the US lost both her standing as a bastion of free-trade and the ability to lessen her reliance on China, from which she imported over $500 billion of goods in 2017, causing a monumental $375 billion trade deficit. According to the US International Trade Commission and the World Bank, the TPP would have positively impacted the US and all other countries involved by encouraging investments across national

lines. As so, contrary to politically-skewed claims that plagued the presidential election, the US’ withdrawal from the TPP limited her access to new economic opportunities, and hence, growth.

Seemingly in response to America’s failure to recognize the TPP, 10 Association for Southeast Asian Nations members and 6 other nations in the region formally began preparations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership , a Chinese-led free-trade agreement. Such a reactionary proposal poses tremendous threats on the status quo, where the US is the sole world leader in free-trade partnerships, instead moving towards a world with Chinese dominance in free-trade. Yet despite the audacious plan, the US must not engage in a direct trade war with China, as such a move would negatively impact American consumers and producers. Instead, the US should boost trade with other nations, especially those with similar national interests, or simply those with diverging interests to that of China’s, to promote its own economic and political values.

In order to promote her market-led approach, the US must address China’s increasing global presence by responding to its bold economic interests.

The US runs a regulated free market economy, thriving upon private investments as a major component of economic growth.

China, on the other hand, operates a complex socialist market economy, interfering

with domestic and international markets to pursue her own perception of stability. Through state-owned enterprises and extensive subsidies, China fuels biased economic activities, promoting heavily-subsidized investments to serve skewed political interests. For instance, the World Trade Organization (WTO) reported that China has upheld prohibited tax breaks to boost exports, while imposing protective tariffs to limit purchases of foreign products in China. Additionally, China has previously been criticized for its falseful territorial claims in the South China Sea, spurring reactions from neighboring countries against her desire to become a global leader. The US, as a historic proponent of free trade, thus, must prolong her advocacy of limited government influence, including subsidies in international trade, preventing liberal economic partnerships from leaning towards the Chinese economic plan.

Similarly, the One Belt One Road Initiative poses a serious threat to the pursuit of a US-centered trade regime.

Since October 2013, China has boosted investments in infrastructure, both at home and abroad in the hope of becoming the recognized world power. With the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), China introduced an attractive loaning mechanism for developing Asian nations to invest in infrastructure, simultaneously generating

profit to boost her own economic growth.

This bank, along with the Silk Road Fund, which invests in infrastructure-focused projects, has improved China’s global appearance, crafting a sophisticated facade portraying a heroic leader of economic development. As the Trump administration lessens American foreign aid, AIIB’s increasing lending to local infrastructure projects has helped China replace America as a humanitarian leader, undermining America’s vast foreign aid spendings, a figure expected to rise to $16.8 billion in 2019. With such a comprehensive approach, China is able to conceal an extended history of human rights abuses within its own territory, including extreme online censorship, the mistreatment of Taiwanese citizens, and according to the Human Rights Watch, the refusal to uphold common safeguards for basic human rights in programs that the AIIB funds. Yet while China’s plan extends new economic frontiers for developing nations with lacking infrastructure, China has also used these projects to extend her military and diplomatic influence. In Central Asia and Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Kenya, Chinese firms are becoming overly influential on the economic and political fronts, abusing their financial strength to impose their own trade practices. In fact, some of the bank’s loans have already caused budget deficits, most notably in Myanmar,

Tanzania, and Sri Lanka, as high interest rates have created irreparable financing issues. Such complications expose China’s apparent geopolitical interests and imposing approach towards global trade, suggesting her underlying antipathy. Thus the United States, as a protector of human rights and transparency in trade, must address China’s attempts to fraudfully improve its image abroad, highlighting the humanitarian work she has done to expose the true record of the crooked Chinese government.

Many analysts have claimed that Sino-US relations should either be complete cooperation or a zero-sum game. Neither of these approaches will fully benefit the US, but complete cooperation would be much more disastrous as it would be a complete dismissal of our founding principles. As so, President Trump’s “America First” agenda is irrelevant and irresponsible: every president in US history has acted according to their own view of American interests, and American interests are at least partially dependent on the strength of US allies and the acceptance of America’s Liberal ideals. In order for America to continue her dominance as a global trade and diplomatic power, the US must turn to more aggressive free trade policies before China’s imposing anti-free market approach, just as Communist ideologies in the 20th century, spreads further.

5

Cooperation, not Confrontation: United States-China Relations

By Alex Xu ’19

G

raham Allison, American political scientist and professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, posited that as China challenges America’s predominance, misunderstandings about each other’s actions and intentions will lead the two countries into a deadly “trap.”

This theory was first developed by ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who, in the context of the Peloponnesian War, explained: “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” International relations scholars, particularly of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, have often used this theory as evidence to predict “hegemonic wars,” or major conflicts between an emerging and an existing power. However, prominent strategic thinkers such as Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to President Nixon, have argued that a realist cold war mentality and zero-sum game mindset must not dominate present-day policy-making. According to Cheng Li, Chinese-American scholar and director of the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution, the preeminent 6

basis for this claim lies in the fact that humanity has entered an era of economic globalization unprecedented in terms of its scale and scope: China is now strikingly linked to the international system, as opposed to the cold war period when it maintained strict isolationist policies.

However, she has also become increasingly perceived as the emerging power in the equation of a “hegemonic war” against the existing U.S. power.

President Xi Jinping’s recent proposal of a “new model of major-power relations” echoes Kissinger’s open and cooperative sentiments, arguing that China and the United States must develop a mutually beneficial relationship in this new age of economic globalization by abandoning the zero-sum mentality and advancing areas of bilateral interests. However, the past two American administrations have failed to acknowledge this concept, demonstrating an unwillingness to consider stronger relations as a valid alternative to their current, ill-defined, foreign policy on China. In order to better understand the origins of such conflicting views, one must consider:

why is China so keen on a “new model of major-power relations” and why is the U.S. so reluctant to adopt it?

China’s Perspective

Xi Jinping’s “new model” framework is underlined by China’s hope for a global climate more conducive to its economic development. Cheng Li stated that “China has always seen itself as a civilization deeply entangled and affected by history,” an attribute that has had direct impact on China’s policy-making. Recognizing the historically recurring clashes between an emerging power and an existing power, China looks to the “new model” to seek a steadier rise in an increasingly integrated world.

At the same time, China wants to be seen as an equal in relation to the major powers. By using the term “major-power” to primarily, if not solely, refer to China and the United States, Xi Jinping aims to present China commensurate with the U.S. Obtaining American support of the “new model” would imply Washington’s recognition of China’s legitimacy, rein-

forcing its desire to be seen as a global force.

Furthermore, by emphasizing the mutual respect of “core interests” as a principal element of the concept, this “new model” pressures the two nations to establish a new code of conduct in line with China’s interests, namely with regard to territory. American adoption of the concept would imply the United States’ approval of China’s expansion into the South China Sea. The mutual respect of each other’s national interests is at the forefront of China’s aspirations.

The United States’ Perspective

Although Xi Jinping’s and the Chinese government’s attitude toward the “new model” is enthusiastic, Washington views this concept with cynicism. Traditionally, American policy-makers have had no interest in embracing new geopolitical frameworks offered by other countries. Accordingly, U.S. recognition of the internationalist concept would not only implicate an American backseat role in a bilateral relationship, but further suggest that the United States acknowledges itself as a declining existing power in a “Thucydides’s trap” with a rising Chinese power.

Additionally, the United States is held back by how its neighboring allies in the Asia-Pacific would interpret its embrace of strengthened relations with China. This is where Xi Jinping’s “major-power” model is rather short-sighted, as it ignores key American allies and the important role they play for the United States in the region. Smaller nations such as the Philippines and Vietnam would fear that a stronger partnership between the U.S. and China would only fuel Chinese expansionism in South and South-

east Asia. Moreover, the strengthening of U.S.-China relations would threaten the U.S.-Japan security alliance and exacerbate Japanese fears of abandonment.

With such concerns from pivotal allies, the United States is reluctant to acknowledge Xi Jinping’s “new model” framework.

However, the key barrier for the White House is in its cynicism toward China’s motives. It is not in the interest of Washington to recognize China’s “core interests,” most notably its territorial demands. As a result, American leaders see the “new model” as a Chinese ploy to gain official foreign recognition of its disputed territorial claims.

The onus now rests on the U.S. to reciprocate in cooperation, or risk leading both countries into that “Thucydides’s trap,” and in turn, mutually assured destruction.

Moving Forward

Ultimately, Cheng Li’s so-called “Chinese enthusiasm” and “American cynicism” toward Xi Jinping’s “new model of major-power relations” must be discussed in the context of the ways in which reconciliation between the two conflicting attitudes toward the model could develop. If China seeks American endorsement of the “new model,” it needs to adopt real changes in its behavior to demonstrate commit-

ment and resolve toward the stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific. Additionally, China must abandon its overwhelmingly assertive and rigid stance on territorial disputes and other political formalities to improve its global image. In order to accomplish this, China needs to function as a diplomatic voice for smaller Asian countries and to advance the interests of the region altogether. Without substantive action on the part of the Chinese government, this “new model” will not succeed.

However, the United States must also re-evaluate its position on Xi Jinping’s “new model of major-power relations.” While the Trump administration, armed with its “America first” slogan, has revived an antiquated zero-sum mentality in American foreign policy, forethinking scholars of political influence are using the concept of Xi Jinping’s model to break old mindsets, challenge realist thinking, and diminish the cold war mentality. Additionally, Xi Jinping’s “new model” proposal serves as a formal diplomatic overture to move past the two nations’ cultural and ideological differences and focus on the greater economic and conciliatory benefits that would result from a stronger partnership, disproving cynics’ claims that cooperation with China is antithetical to American values and interests. Lawrence Summers, Undersecretary for International Affairs under the Clinton administration, once said that he could picture a 21st century in which the United States and China both prospered, or a 21st century in which both countries failed to prosper, but not one in which one country prospered and the other did not. Evidently, the internationalist concept is not exclusive to Xi Jinping’s China: it is being promoted globally. A better American strategy could be developed—instead of being solely concerned with zero-sum power politics, the United States should look at the bigger picture—the concept of a “new model of major-power relations” is constructive and conducive so long as it can effectively guide and encourage a non-confrontational and mutually beneficial foreign policy on China; the onus now rests on the U.S. to reciprocate in cooperation, or risk leading both countries into that “Thucydides's trap,” and in turn, mutually assured destruction.

7

In Defense of “Democratic Shutdown”

By Sam Charlton ’20

C

lose your eyes, and just think. Imagine that you are were born on 1988 in Warsaw, Poland. Just before your first birthday, your family decides to flee the country due to the revolution in eastern Europe. Your family escapes to a new country, and you have lived there ever since. Both your parents then pass away, and the only tie you ever had to Poland or Polish culture is now gone. Despite this, There is a law in your country put in place to protect those in your exact predicament from being deported. However, the con-

88

servative politicians in your country want to repeal this act, arguing that it is simply another form of illegal immigration.

Repealing this act would force you to return to Poland or face deportation. Now remember, you haven’t lived in Poland for 20 years, you had absolutely no choice in emigrating from Poland, but you are now on the verge of being sent back to a country were you don’t even speak the native language. This seems pretty crazy and unrealistic, but with the push to repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,

or DACA for short, this is exactly what is currently taking place in the United States.

Let’s just make one thing clear, DACA is not a bipartisan issue. 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents, and 69 percent of Republicans believe that those currently protected by DACA should stay. So when Trump announced that he was going to put an end to DACA, he not only went against the general public’s opinion but he also contradicted his past self. While Trump’s hypocrisy comes as no surprise and at this point can almost be expected, even Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have said on multiple occasions that they are in favor of finding a pathway for the “Dreamers” to stay. It is clear that there is heavy bipartisan support for this issue, yet Donald Trump has decided to pull back on it. The president’s motives are unclear, but many speculate that it was John Kelly, his Chief of Staff, that talked him out of the deal. Trump’s residence on DACA resulted in a Democratic refusal to pass a budget bill which in turn led to the first Government Shutdown. Some will argue that this shutdown was no different than the one orchestrated by Ted Cruz during Obama’s presidency. However this is an invalid comparison asTed Cruz essentially shut down the government in 2013 in an attempt to repeal Obamacare.

However, Ted Cruz knew that he would never get Barack Obama to repeal the staple piece of legislation of his presidency, so he essentially shut down the government for the sake of shutting down the government. However, in the case of the most recent shutdown, the Democrats were just trying to get the Republicans to do what they said they were going to do numerous times, which is pass a government spending bill and protects the basic rights of over 800,000 dreamers.

Murderers, Rapists Don’t Deserve Our Prisons: Give Firing Squad a Shot

By Nicholas Fleisher ’18

H

ow can someone like Dylann Roof or Nikolas Cruz even be given a chance at life in prison? Each are perpetrators of senseless acts of murder, yet both will most likely sit in prison for the rest of their lives.

Sure, they may be sentenced to death, but, even so, they will sit in prison for decades to come. Why is it that these people aren’t immediately sentenced to death? Why do we — taxpayers — pay to keep them alive in secure prison cells (all mass-shooters are isolated to prevent violence)? Is the life that each of these ill criminals has in prison all that different from their lives before — with the exception that we now pay for their expenses?

Thirty one states allow for the death penalty to be served as punishment.

Twenty three people were killed by capital punishment last year (all via lethal injection). I wouldn’t have a problem with this number if there weren’t thousands of murderers, rapists, child molestors, kidnappers, and large-volume drug traffickers sitting in prison with life sentences. As of 2012, there were 160,000 people serving fulllife sentences, 50,000 without the chance of parole. The average cost to taxpayers is over $31,000 a year for each of these criminals.

With that, I present a solution that is perfectly reasonable for the United States to adopt. Wait to judge the supposed humanity or inhumanity of my proposal until you have read my reasoning.

The U.S. ought to sentence everyone serving a life sentence who is convicted of the aforementioned crimes to death. Instead of spending millions of dollars on lethal injection — which is botched nearly 10% of the time (and often slow) — the executions must be carried out by the more humane method of firing squad (0% botched execution rate). These must happen within a year after sentencing — and only after one appeal — such that death row does

not continue to simply mean life in prison (over 3,000 criminals currently sit on death row). This will not only be cost-effective and just, but also deter future horrible crimes.

These criminals — like the mass-shooters mentioned before — don’t deserve the quality of life they receive in prison. The argument is made all the time that these types of criminals receive the worst in prison. In some cases that’s true, but in others they are in their own private cell. They receive free food, shelter, and bathroom access, as well as occasional

television, phone service, WiFi, and more.

Many of these criminals were not living the best lives before prison, but now taxpayer dollars keep them living their subpar lives for free. When you commit such a terrible crime, you lose your privilege to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — justifying the death penalty over prison.

Not to mention, if someone is sentenced to life in prison without parole, there is no hope that they rebound and return to society as a normal or beneficial person.

Firing squad is illegal in every state that sentences people to death. Nearly all of those states utilize lethal injection.

It seems like it creates the least pain, but it doesn’t — just look at the botched rate.

(Another flaw in the anti-capital punishment argument: wanting people to be “tortured” by life in prison, yet wanting them to be harmlessly murdered.) The same goes for the electric chair. Additionally, lethal injection is notoriously expensive. It can cost up to $150,000 more than just giving someone a life sentence. This isn’t right. Capital punishment should be cheaper. Firing squad, therefore, provides the best method. It costs pennies and is an immediate death. Yes, there’s blood and it appear inhumane, but that can be cleaned up. We can’t obsess over how humane a dead person looks if we’ve just killed them slowly and with error. When shot by a firing squad (trained experts), the person is immediately killed without feeling anything. This past week alone, Florida botched the lethal injection of a man who had spent 24 years on death row for murder and rape. He was proven guilty yet spent decades legally fighting the state against being put to death. His execution should have been carried out 23 years ago, and in a more humane way. In the same week, three executions were postponed or commuted — each for brutal murderers and rapists. How can governors and courtrooms really take the sides of these criminals, and hand them off to our prison systems and taxpayers?

What would scare someone out of murdering innocent people if his or her life condition after the crime was the same or similar to before the crime? Ultimately, death penalty ought to be applied to all of these life sentences for a fear factor. The number of murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and so on would deplete dramatically. People would fear the outcome of their crime that much more if it wasn’t just ending up in prison.

9

Net Neutrality Is Dead, Now What?

By Jiahua Chen ’20

The origins of net neutrality.

Coined by Columbia University professor Tim Wu in 2003, net neutrality is a core principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must provide the same speeds and experiences for all users, services, sites, and means of access. By classifying ISPs as a public utility, the government could impose certain restrictions on ISPs in order to protect consumers. Specifically, ISPs are prohibited from throttling (slowing down) speeds, blocking certain sites and services for its users, or charging differently when it comes to the different sites. Advocates have stated that a lack of net neutrality potentially sets a treacherous precedent towards our free and open internet access.

Despite heavy opposition, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal net neutrality in December of 2017. Without net neutrality, what will our internet look like going forward? Will our internet really look as grim as some make it out to be?

Busting some common myths on net neutrality.

Mainstream media has most definitely influenced our view of net neutrality. However, its depiction of the future of the internet is not exactly accurate. Many activists describe net neutrality as a ‘slippery slope’, but exactly how slippery is this slope? Here are some commonly posed arguments in support of net neutrality and why they’re flawed: The ‘free’ internet will cease to exist as we see it today.

10 10

Well, the ‘free’ internet has certainly existed long before the implementation of net neutrality by the FCC in 2015.

At this point in time, we are not seeing any changes, or at least, have not detected any changes being carried out by ISPs that take advantage of a lack of net neutrality.

Additionally, internet infrastructures of foreign nations are similarly flourishing and developing without net neutral regulations. There is no sufficient correlation between the existence (or the lack) of net neutrality and the function of the internet!

ISPs will block access to certain sites or services.

It’s not like we haven’t seen a scenario like this in the past. In late 2012, mobile carrier AT&T implemented a widely controversial policy to block FaceTime for certain subscribers of its lower-tiered data plans.

AT&T cited FaceTime as a source of congestion and stress on their system, which

would lead to dropped calls and lowered data speeds for everybody. An even earlier example of this violation would be that of Madison River Communications’ blocking of a rival service called Vonage in 2004. However, even without net neutrality laws, these very controversial policies and decisions have still been overturned or rescinded due to the opposition that ISPs faced from the consumers. At the end of the day, consumers purchase what they want and the products that suit them, and in a cutthroat and competitive sector such as the telecommunications industry, companies cannot afford to limit services or sites without compromising customer satisfaction. As long as consumers can switch ISPs (perhaps to a rivaling provider), ISPs will maintain the ‘free’ internet without the need of net neutrality legislation whatsoever. Consumers are the only ‘check’ that is needed on ISPs.

However, some might argue that this proposed system of consumers being

the only ‘check and balance’ for ISPs is incredibly flawed. Most consumers are simply not well-informed about these issues regarding net neutrality and many will not care enough about slightly slowed speeds to switch their ISP. Many consumers also don’t even notice that their choices are being swayed by what they’re interacting with on the internet. Yet ultimately, a micromanagement of the telecommunications industry is still unnecessarily overstepping the line of authority that the FCC has and is not what we need. We need to start placing consumers first not by babying them, but by informing them about issues like these.

There will be ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ lanes of the internet.

Burger King recently created an advertisement comparing internet access to its burgers. In the advertisement, consumers pay more money to get their burgers faster; and it ends with a tagline of a commonly seen pro-net neutrality argument: that “the internet should be like the Whopper: the same for everyone.” Yet, only 90% of Americans are connected to the internet, and a mere 40% of people worldwide are connected to the grid. It can be said without doubt that at this point in time, the internet access is certainly not universal. Additionally, this ‘myth’ fails to recognize that there are already these ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ lanes of the internet, albeit for consumers. Most ISPs offer several different tiers of internet connectivity based on price and geographic accessibility. The speed of an expensive fiber internet connection (often costing more than $80 a month) will most likely exceed the speed of a conventional internet connection by more than 20-fold. When it concerns mobile connectivity, mobile carriers also discriminate heavily based on which plan you’re subscribed to, or your current usage in that month. These are the lanes of the internet based on how much each and every consumer can pay.

When it concerns the ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ lanes of the internet for companies, there is a fundamental difference between discrimination and prioritization. These are, in fact, not mutually linked. Just because an ISP is now allowed to speed up a certain site (perhaps they entered into

an agreement with the company) does not mean it is allowed to throttle or block a competing site. Some might say that by speeding up one service, it would be removing bandwidth from another so it would inevitably slow down another site.

This might be true, but keep in mind that ISPs have to abide by promised speeds (according to each and every internet plan) and they certainly cannot be violating their own promised speeds when it comes to delivering services on the internet. Additionally, any actual ‘block’ or ‘throttle’ must be clearly published in the contracts and must be stated clearly by each ISP. Consumers will be forced to pay to access certain services.

Many activists have created graphics that depict something along the lines of: “unlock this service for only $5.99!”, warning that without net neutrality, people will be forced to pay for their specific services at outrageous prices.

However, the reason that these depictions have such a dramatic effect is that the pricing is ridiculously inflated. In a restaurant where a buffet is $20, they certainly won’t be charging customers $6 for each item ordered à la carte. The same applies to the internet. Instead of this frivolous hypothesis, we’ll still see similarly priced “unlimited, all-in” plans being offered, but we’ll also encounter more plans that might cater to specific services that are offered at a lower price point. Why should consumers who don’t watch YouTube or stream Netflix as often, instead mainly choosing to stay in contact with family or to occasionally browse the web be expected to pay the same amount as a family streaming YouTube videos in HD, binge-watching Netflix and playing bandwidth-taxing computer games all day? Instead, allowing users to pay for connectivity to specific services (say, low-bandwidth web-pages only without video-streaming sites) allows more people to be connected to the internet at a much lower price point.

A prime and functioning example of this would be similar business models in China, where certain ISPs provide much cheaper data plans that only offer selective connectivity to certain sites and services with a low-data usage. These plans are often within $6 (US dollars) monthly

and are an accessible alternative to the expensive all-in plans that are also provided.

The death of consumerism?

The death of net neutrality might mean a possible step away from consumerism. Instead of placing consumers first, federal agencies such as the FCC are increasingly catering to the demands and wants of large corporations. By potentially allowing companies and large businesses to pay to increase their own bandwidth, the FCC could be stepping in the wrong direction, facilitating the growth of yet even more online giants (those that can afford to pay the hefty fee) and this would overlook all the small and medium-sized businesses that are currently struggling to strive in the information era. These smaller businesses will not be able to cope with other companies’ web pages and speeds, and this would be a harm to both the business and the consumer. If a poorly optimized ‘normal lane’ website for Connecticut’s Farmer Markets takes 4 seconds to load whilst the ‘fast lane’ site for AmazonFresh loads in a mere 1 seconds, many consumers would inevitably opt for the faster-loading site (which might not be the best choice for them). This shall direct and manipulate consumer spending and browsing online, and sways the choices that every consumer opts to make. Perhaps net neutrality is the one last chance to level the playing field before large corporations start wholly monopolizing their markets.

The future of our internet and a likely way out.

All this prompts the big question: what is an ideal (and achievable) state of our internet? At this point in time, it would be too premature to suggest free and accessible internet for all. However, perhaps we can gain some takeaways from net neutrality and to hopefully foster a healthy and accessible internet infrastructure that aims to keeps businesses, consumers and ISPs alike all at heart without the unnecessary overstepping of a government agency’s authority.

11

The Case for A Strong Border

By James Horrocks ’19

T

here is a dangerous binary argument taking place between the loudest policy voices regarding the southern border of the United States. One view consists of the notion that a border is an inconsequential line where the U.S. ends and where Mexico begins, and that defining and protecting it is a hateful, bigoted symbol of white nationalism inconsistent with America’s “give us your tired, sick, and poor” tradition. The other extreme revolves around the notion that the Mexican border epitomizes uncontrolled, lawless immigration which undercuts “America first” policies, and that failure to protect our borders is a root cause of various social ills. Both of these arguments are misleading distract from a real solution to a problem that has split this country. Since when is having a clearly defined border and protecting national sovereignty inappropriate? This is common practice around the world, and since when is importing hard-working talent to expand the labor pool, and the tax base, inconsistent with putting America first? While constructing a wall is criticized by every major media outlet other than Fox, there is a practical, ethical and moral argument for regulated immigration and a secure border which should make both sides reconsider their thoughts on what we can do and what we should do.

I’ll leave aside the arguments for a strong border such as social mistrust, crime, and national sovereignty, focusing instead on fairness, ethics, and concern for human life as the basis for a strong border and an unambiguous immigration policy.

Over the past year Democratic Party leaders like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Kirsten Gillibrand have come forward and made the case that America must not build a strong border because we have to be open to everyone that wants to come here. The rallying cry of “we are all dreamers too” and “we are all immigrants” can be heard from protesters and every left-wing congressman in DC. Howev12

er, it seems that nobody has considered the signaling effect these arguments and policies such as “sanctuary cities” have on those desperate to immigrate. In December 2017, The Huffington Post reported on a Fusion investigation which stated that 80% of Central American women are raped while on their journeys to the United States through Mexico, an increase from from Amnesty International’s previous statistic of 60%. Full volume statistics for those who embark on a journey north to the U.S. border are not reliable, but those who face a fate worse than rape or assault likely number in the tens of thousands annually. With an open border and “sanctuary cities” we continue to support this catastrophic risk by encouraging illegal immigrants to make the dangerous trek from various Latin American countries through Mexico.

Furthermore, the New York Times reported in May of 2017 that from October 2000 to September 2016, the United States border control documented 6,023 deaths at the border crossing itself, and that number has been each year. For those who cross the border the risks are still considerable: it’s hard to forget the chilling report of ten illegal immigrants dying and several others suffering brain damage due to heat exhaustion while in the back of a truck near San Antonio this past summer.

Simply put, it is inhumane and unethical to encourage desperate people to undertake these risks under a false promise, only to arrive in a country with lackluster social services. New York and Los Angeles both already have more than 117,000 documented homeless individuals. These cities, which are already ill-equipped to support more indigent poor, happen to have the most illegal immigrants, with estimates at 2,150,000 according to the PEW Research Center. With social programs that can’t even support the general population, it is unethical and, in fact, dishonest to signal to illegal immigrants that their Amer-

ican dream awaits in a sanctuary city.

Those who are reluctant to take action to limit or discourage illegal immigration also minimize the political and economic damage that such unregulated immigration has on the cause of legal immigration itself. Those who seek to maximize immigration, or at least liberalize it, should be making the strongest arguments for the benefits of legal immigration and be advocating for the best public policies that will make it effective. And yet they don’t. Also, some argue that it is immoral to not allow people entry who face terrible conditions at home, however, by allowing illegal immigrants to pour in we keep social orders in place in many Latin American countries which have horrible gang violence and poor quality of life. By denying the option of escaping to the United States we will allow social change to occur in places that desperately need it.

Despite what the pundits in Washington say, there is a solution to the problem of our border in south and the dangerous illegal immigration that occurs each day. The only way to reach that solution, however, is to reject the binary argument that exists in the current political climate. A strong border, whatever that may look like, doesn’t mean that the United States can’t accept immigrants from Latin American countries who aspire to remake their lives in the United States and be productive citizens. Immigration in America doesn’t have to be illegal with no border or impossible with a border. In fact, the best way to promote legal immigration is to strengthen the border, expedite application and review processes that allow for legal immigrants to come into America, and increase total immigration. By strengthening our border, enforcing and clarifying our policies, and expediting legal processes, we can save thousands of lives and help more immigrants attain their American dream than ever before.

Life, Liberty, and LSD

By Miles O’Reilly ’19

O

n January 1st, 2018, California became the sixth state to fully legalise marijuana and allow licensed dispensaries to sell the drug to citizens over 21 for recreational use. Only three days later, however, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions repealed the Cole memo, an Obama-era legislature that had offered protection to states regarding their respective enforcement of laws pertaining to marijuana consumption. Sessions’ rescinding of federal guidance will allow prosecutors more latitude to enforce federal anti-marijuana laws even within states with legalisation.

Given the tremendous progress achieved in recent years in the push for the legalisation of marijuana—in January, Vermont succeeded in this by way of state legislature—this aggressive move from the Trump administration is a major setback and has led to both confusion concerning the legality of recreational drug use, and friction between federal and state governments.

The current divide has not only emphasised the issue of weed but has also raised interest in a movement that aims for the complete legalisation—on a federal level—of all drugs for recreational usage.

Jeff Sessions’ views on marijuana reflect the restrictive mentality towards recreational drug usage that is deeply rooted in the United States. Since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, the federal government has led a forceful campaign to combat the presence of illegal drugs in the United States. This so called ‘War on Drugs’ is both unnecessary and ineffective, and has only resulted in the infringement upon the rights of Americans, the exhaustion of government resources, and the militarisation of law enforcement. The purpose of government should be to protect its citizens’ rights and ensure the preservation of liberty. There exists nothing more vital to this pursuit than the freedom of individual action and decision. This right extends across all facets of liberty, includ-

ing one’s choice to recreationally consume drugs—especially members of the illicit substance category such as cocaine, heroin, or LSD—with no exception.

According to the Centre of Disease Control, roughly 29 million Americans—almost 10 percent of the population—illegally use one or multiple forms of recreational drugs. The overwhelming majority of users are regular, peaceful Americans who consume them in the privacy of their homes. They are acting out of their own free will, and are not directly harming others, and the government should therefore honour and respect their decisions. As a nation, we hold the belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the fundamental and unalienable rights that man is entitled to. If one feels as though recreational drugs can provide them with happiness and will not impact the wellbeing of others, he or she should have the liberty to access them legally.

Apart from being immoral,passing legislation with the intention of restricting substances is ultimately ineffective at solving illegal consumption. In 1920, Congress passed the 18th Amendment—prohibiting the production, transport, and sale of alcohol—in order to crack down on rampant alcoholism and alcohol-fueled social issues that had consumed the United States since the 19th century.

Although well-intentioned, the prohibition laws failed horrifically at solving the very issue they aimed to fix. As supply collapsed, demand only increased, paving the way for criminal gangs to replace the former distilleries and breweries and create a robust underground world of illegal alcohol distribution. Bootlegging provided gangs with a strong source of income and allowed them to establish themselves in major cities across the States, leading to a drastic increase in both crime and violence, of which the main victims were innocent citizens. As the police frantically attempted to combat this emergence of

organised crime, they executed a series of unjust raids, arrests, and searches, effectively pinning Americans between violent gangsters and an oppressive and unfair law enforcement.

In 2001, Portugal made history as it became the first European country to fully legalise all drugs for recreational use. The legislature passed stated that any adult could lawfully consume any drug of their choosing, and that addicts would be presented with rehabilitation rather than incarceration. Contrary to concerns of creating a drug-plagued society, usage rates dropped drastically and as of 2011, drug usage in Portugal has halved. The success achieved in Portugal demonstrates the validity of complete decriminalisation.

Through legalisation, Portugal upheld the civil rights of her citizens whilst simultaneously improving public health and fostering a society centred on rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the draconian laws that currently dictate the legality of recreational drug usage should be repealed entirely. They are misconceived, counterproductive, and are the cause for the backwards culture surrounding substance use in the United States. Voluntary drug consumption, whether medicinal or recreational, is a form of personal expression and exercising of freedoms. Laws prohibiting drug consumption not only infringe upon the unalienable rights granted by the Constitution, but also create an environment in which criminals profit off of trafficking and distribution. We are a nation founded on the ideals of liberty, yet we do not honour this through our policies. The role of the government should be to uphold human dignity, and there is nothing more dignified than possessing the ability to act upon individual wants and desires.

13

Guns:

The Bad and The Ugly

By Nevada Lee ’18

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The idea that one must be part of a militia in order to gain this right was only recently overturned in 2008 with the case DC v. Heller. Justice Scalia, the conservative justice who wrote the opinion on behalf of the court, argued that a “militia” at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights was an organization that practically every individual was a part of. Therefore, he argued, this clause concerning a militia is irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

However, Justice Scalia also states in his opinion, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The Second Amendment can be limited, he noted, in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances are that felons or the mentally ill may not own guns, that guns may be forbidden in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings, and that laws may put conditions for gun sales, and firearms that are “dangerous or unusual.” Scalia, in his own words, expresses in this opinion that there is a reasonable need for gun control in American society and that the Second Amendment is not an untouchable right.

On Valentine’s Day of this year, an 18 year-old man walked into Marjory Stonewall Douglas High School and killed 14 high school students and 3 teachers. This man had been recently expelled from the school and had legally bought his AR-15 a year earlier. In order to obtain this gun, the man would have filled out form 4473, used by licensed dealers use to conduct background checks. Even though a potential buyer would face felony charges if he or she filled out the form in a knowing-

ly-incorrect manner, they still do not need to show photo-ID or provide social security numbers. After filling out this form, a buyer’s name would be run through three different databases, and eventually cleared or denied in a matter of minutes. In the Parkland case, there is no indication that the shooter lied on the form or that any of these databases would have prevented him from buying the highly lethal gun.

The system we have in place is obviously flawed. First, the background check is only required for the sales from Federal Firearm Licensed dealers; the sale of a gun online, privately, or at a gun show does not require a background check. According the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, there are approximately 5,000 gun shows in the U.S. each year.

These gun shows result in over 26,000 gun sales to individuals who would ordinarily not pass a background check (“Following the Gun,” published in 2000). Secondly, our system is not broad enough. In the Sutherland Springs shooting, for example, it took only one mistake of failing to report dishonorable discharge for the man to buy a gun.

Common sense safety measures include many pieces of legislation, but, perhaps, the four most prominent ones are: requiring background checks for all gun sales, expanding the background check, having weapons individually registered to track illegal sales and banning assault weapons in some form. Each of these proposals is extremely popular. For example, Quinnipiac University conducted a recent poll, which showed that 97% of American voters support background checks for all gun sales and 67% would support banning assault weapons, including the AR-15.

Common sense gun safety regulation has proven successful, both domestically and internationally, at reducing gun violence.

However, the intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association has often quashed these measures which seem so reasonable to most American voters.

Second-Amendment advocates argue that the problem with a background check proposal is that it would keep guns out of the hands of “the good guys” who could potentially stop the “bad man with a gun.” (One wonders why the “good guy” would fail to pass a background check.)

Nevertheless, the Sutherland Springs

shooting is often used as evidence to support this myth of the need to allow as many people as possible to obtain guns.

Yet, Steven Willeford, the man who killed the gunman, had years of training; he was an NRA instructor. Any veteran or trained gun professional would tell you that being able to accurately shoot someone who is shooting back at you takes years of training, something that the average person is unlikely to obtain. The “good guy with a gun” myth is still a myth. And, let us not forget, despite Willeford’s heroic action, twenty-six people were killed in that shooting that might have otherwise been prevented through better gun control.

Another argument against these common-sense proposals is that they are not “end alls.” Background checks only go so far; after all, Steven Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, would likely to have passed even a more extensive background check.

Background checks don’t solve everything, and neither would banning AR-15s,but we have to start somewhere. Together, these measures can reinforce each other.

Just like having a fence, an alarm system, and a dog to protect one’s home, we need multiple measures to protect our citizens from mass shootings. We must strive to prevent “bad guys” from buying guns, but if that fails, we must also limit the lethality of the firearms that are available.

Since the massacre on October 1, 2017 in my hometown of Las Vegas, I have been adamantly calling for the banning the AR-15 and similar weapons, higher caliber bullets which are only suitable to for the military, and restricting the size of gun magazines. The AR-15 was designed, ultimately, as a response to the Russian’s AK-47 during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It is a military weapon.

Justice Scalia wrote in the opinion of DC v. Heller, that a weapon could be banned if it was “dangerous and unusual.” Recent events have proved this to be the case for the AR-15.

Fixing gun-violence in America will take generations. It will be a long difficult fight in the streets, in the state houses and in the U.S. Congress. Yet, we have to keep fighting. Simply because we cannot eradicate all gun violence should not restrict us from trying to improve. Even a modest reduction in gun violence makes us all safer.

15

New Constitution Analysis What did the new Chinese Constitution change, and what do those changes indicate?

By Edward Guo ’19

R

ecently, the Chinese state news agency, Xinhua Agency, released a draft for the long-rumored new constitution.

The new constitution should not be seen as what Chinese government claims it to be –– a reform to ensure that government agencies “rule by the law,” to curb corruption, and to make time-fitting tweaks. Instead, it should be read as a warning sign of China’s continued centralization and refusal to reshape itself to the international community. Although it remains 16

a proposal to be passed as of now, it almost certainly will be ratified during the upcoming meetings of the People’s Parliament in March 2018, with little to no modifications.

The new constitution proposes changes in four major areas: removal of the term-limit for the nation’s highest office, the creation of a Central Oversight Committee, further justifications for the legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the Chinese government, and

institution of new reforms including the localization of legislative power.

First and foremost, the new constitution abolishes the term limit of the nation’s Chairman position, and with no apparent successor in sight, there is a great possibility that Xi will seek to maintain his positions as the leader of China for the years to come. The two-term limit stated in the current Constitution was established in 1982, after the CCP reflected on the mistakes and atrocities made during

the Cultural Revolutions, caused mainly

by Mao Zedong's concentrating of power.

The term limit was placed to prevent anyone from getting too much power therefore ensuring the stability of the political system. Although Xi believes that stability is the fundamental base for any reform and changes to be carried out, he also believes that it could be achieved through an alternative path –– consistency. This extension of tenure is his ultimate solution to ensure stability. During his previous term, he introduced the concept of “the rejuvenation of the Chinese civilization,” planning to elevate China into the ranks of developed countries by 2050, and he is adamant in the realization of his plans. Therefore to Xi, there is no one better than himself to see the realization of these grand master plans.

Realistically, with Xi holding almost total control over the military, no one comes remotely close to challenging his rule.

The Central Supervision Commission is another major focus the proposed Constitution since the majority of words added amend this area. This signifies President Xi’s will to further crack down on corruption, while also concentrating his power using the crackdown as an excuse. It has been long theorized that Xi believes the vitality and existence of the CCP depends on the degree of success of the anti-corruption campaign. Previously, the role of supervising the party’s members lies within the State Council. However, that agency’s duties only extend as far as within the CCP, as was established as a party institute. It lacks the authority and regulation to be able to comply with President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign. The creation of this Commission, supported by the newly drafted law regarding supervision, means that oversight will no longer remain in the State Council. This Commission will have the highest authority and power in the Chinese bureaucracy, being on the same level as the Central Military Commission and the State Council, as stated in the proposed Constitution. In official documents of the CCP, order of importance is often shown through word order. In the proposed Constitution, the Central Supervision Commission comes in front of the judicial system and the public prosecutors’ system in the list of government agencies, and will remain at the same level as the State Council. Because of the high positioning of the Commission, and

the amount of power it holds, it is rumored that Xi himself will chair the Commission.

This Commission should give him enough power to initiate a full crackdown owing support to the newly drafted Supervision Law, and the Commission itself being a national institution rather than merely a party agency. Future crackdown under this Commission will be much more effective at eliminating Xi’s political opponent and consolidating power for him in comparison to previous attempts.

The proposed constitutional changes also seek to further justify the legitimacy of the CCP in the Chinese government, increasing the Party’s power alongside Xi’s. In addition to the old Constitution, which states that “Socialism is the basic ideology of People’s Republic of China,” the revised version adds that “the leadership of CCP is the most basic symbol of Chinese Socialism.” The preface also manages to include Xi-ism and the “core moralities of socialism” –– nationalistic propagandas popularized under the Xi regime –– to the list guidance ideologies of the Chinese legislature. By adding these political concepts to the Constitution, the CCP is taking yet another step to justify their legitimacy in the Chinese government. The additions also prove that while increasingly centralizing his power, Xi still believes in CCP being a crucial part of the Chinese government. He still has faith in the party structure as well as its ability to adapt to changing social and political environment, and sees the survival of the party fundamental to maintaining peace and order in China, as well as promoting reform.

The proposed Constitution also hints at future areas of “reform,” as the word is purposefully added to multiple sentences, most notably alongside “revolution and construction” when describing what made China so successful. This correlates with Xi’s personal beliefs that modern-day China must undergo reforms to maintain its pace of development and order. This constitution calls for a greater Chinese role in the creation of a so-called “union of human destiny,” which signifies the potential for more aggressive foreign policies from China, as well as further emphasizing on the construction of the “one belt, one road” program. The proposed Constitution also promotes ecological development, stating that the State Council should take on

more responsibility to ensure environmental protection alongside economic development. Another area of reform this Constitution aims at is the further localization of the legislative process. In the current Constitution, only provincial and the four directly-controlled municipal legislatures have the right to legislate local laws. However, with the changes in the proposed constitution, any municipality can now legislate their own laws and regulations, as long as they comply with the Constitution.

This complies with Xi-ism, which champions reforms from the bottom up. However, this does not necessarily make the Chinese government federalist, as the central government is by no means forfeiting any power, and the provincial and municipal governments are still expected to follow the central guidelines. But, by giving the local legislatures more power, Xi certainly hopes that reforms will be more specific and more local, therefore more effective in dealing with more specific, regional problems, such as the long-lasting economic recession in northeastern China. An area the proposed constitution does not reform, on the other hand, is the current ethnic policies. The new constitution claims that “equal, united, mutually helping, and harmonious” ethnic relations have already been established. This means that the government is looking to continue the current high-pressure policies in regions of ethnic tension –– Tibet, Xinjiang, and Ningxia.

The new constitution further consolidates power around Xi and the CCP. Although it does promote certain reforms, it does not provide a clear guideline over how the rising ethnic tension and social problems could be solved, besides promoting local reform and legislation.

The creation of the Supervision Commission means the CCP is determined to continue with the current authoritarian leadership system while becoming rapidly nationalistic. China, constantly calling for international recognition and increasingly becoming more involved with the international community, does not plan to open itself up to the world. How much will the international community tolerate such contradictions, and how far can the government tighten within the country without resulting in massive dissatisfaction, remains unknown.

17

Privatizing the NYC Subway

By Tatr Assakul ’18

T

he New York City subway system, one of the oldest and most extensive systems in the world, is failing its 5.4 million daily commuters as it falls into a state of disrepair. When comparing the on-time arrival rate to other American cities such as Los Angeles (99%), Boston (97%) and Washington D.C. (88%), NYC has one of the worst: 65%. Although New York City, an exemplar of modern urban life, holds the title for the densest city in the country (28,210 people per square mile), its subway fails to live up to the City’s image.

The subway cars still follow the 1930s-era signals, and daily delays plague the transportation system. With such a frequency of delays, derailments and fires, how did the pride of the City turn out this way?

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the organization that runs the NYC subway, is unfortunately controlled by the New York State government. This means that all of its decisions fall into the hands of policy makers, particularly the State Governor and the Mayor. These decision-makers do not see the benefit of funding the MTA and its importance for people who rely on the service. For example, in 1994, Mayor Rudy Giuliani wanted to prove that he could run the City without raising taxes, leading to a $400 million cut in funding for the MTA. Following in Giuliani’s footsteps, the City Government has continued to cut funding for the subway system, even though real estate value and property tax revenues have quadrupled since the early 1990s. During the same decade, lawmakers in Albany cut funding for subway maintenance even though the state budget increased from $45 to $80 billion. Later when Governor Pataki was in office, the state cut subsidies for the MTA, forcing the organization to rely entirely on fares and tolls. Governor Cuomo made the MTA spend $1 billion on lightings, signs, 18

countdown clocks and other upgrades to futilely embellish multiple stations. With elections always looming around the corner, governors and mayors will be thinking about their own survival while the future of the NYC subway sits quietly in the back seat. Without a budget and state subsidies, the MTA has to resort to borrowing, which plunges the organization into debt.

To save even more money, the MTA delays track maintenance further increasing the number of derailments and delays.

While the City and state government can solve the problem by simply investing back into the system (which is what they did in 1970s), there is, however, another efficient method of improving the system: privatize it. The City can start selling parts of the subway to multiple private companies through competitive bidding.

The demand for an efficient subway system will continue to rise while governors and mayors battle each other on laws that have no subsequent impact on the subway.

Disconnecting gruesome politics from social need will help revive a transportation system necessary to sustain a growing city.

While privatization can lead to a rise in price levels, there are multiple benefits to this. Firstly, the price level of tickets will be kept low if the current system is sold to a handful of smaller companies. Competition among private firms will assure a reasonable market price for subway tickets.

Labor cost will be lower as well because when an organization in charge of managing multiple stations or lines is smaller, there is less cost spent on labor. Additionally, with improvements in technology from capital investment (which private firms will prioritize more), less human labor will be needed to operate the subway. Organizational management in private firms will also be more flexible. The management in the MTA knows what needs to be fixed and done, but they could not accomplish

anything as long as they are chained to the political scene. With management free from the claws of the government, private firms will be able focus more on providing efficient service for the public.

What about the poor? How might they be able to pay for the tickets?

If the government places a price ceiling on ticket price, subways will be unable to compete with other means of transport such as buses and private automobiles.

But if without the price ceiling, the ticket price may soar. At this point, the City can use revenue earned from bidding to help finance and subsidize their ticket fees to make transportation cheaper for the poor.

Additionally, if the fare rises, the poor will be discouraged from taking the subway to work. As a result, the poor will be incentivized to work locally instead as relocation cost to their former workplace can be expensive. This pressures firms that employ these workers to raise wages in able to attract and maintain these workers. There’s also the question about less-profitable lines. To keep them functional, the City can use revenue from tax for maintenance along the unprofitable lines to ensure that workers using these lines will continue to depend on the transportation system.

The means to distance the demand for efficient transportation system from political decisions can be difficult but overall benefits to the people of New York will be greater than what they get now. The City can keep on investing in the system but their efforts can be erased if future policy makers uses the budget to finance something else. Across Asia and Europe, transportation systems with clockwork efficiency are in the hands of private firms with partial subsidies from the state. Maybe it’s time for the New York City subway to open its gargantuan system to the private sector as well.

South Korea Can’t Always Be the Nice Guy

By Alex MxLane ’20

O

n February 9th, the Opening Ceremony of the 2018 Olympic Games was held just east of Seoul in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The highlight of the event: North and South Korean athletes marching under a unified Korean flag.

Many fans cheered on representatives from both Koreas as they marched into the Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium.

Among those cheering was South Korean president Moon Jae-in, who seems to envision the games as an opportunity to ease tensions along the peninsula and open up the North to dialogue. It was an inspiring moment, one that reminded us of a hope for reunification, and yet all the while, it also felt disconcerting. It neglected to recognize the harsh reality of the situation and ultimately felt wrong. While the two Koreas marching under the same flag (and the formation of a joint woman’s Korean hockey team along with other agreements made between President Moon and Kim Jong-un with regards to the Olympics) seemed like a wonderful act of peace and unity, it also ignored the wickedness of the North Korean regime, stripped South Korean athletes of the once in a lifetime opportunity of marching under their own country’s flag in a home Olympic games, and forced South Koreans to root and cheer for their enemies. On a more global political scale, it rewarded North Korea for their violent and threatening actions, placated to Kim’s own wishes, further fed into North Korea’s disgusting propaganda machine, and will likely fail to generate any real progress towards peace, much less reunification.

Many, including South Korean President Moon, have argued that this act of ‘unity’ could help to promote peace un20

der the core values of the Olympics. While these hopes may sound great ideally, the irony in these statements is also undeniable. Let us not forget that North Korea is the complete opposite of peace and unity, but rather a totalitarian dictatorship, one that oppresses and starves its own people while utilizing missile tests and the development of their nuclear program as a way to threaten the likes of South Korea, Japan, and even the United States. When North Korea so blatantly uses violence to generate global disunity, speaking about unity and peace with regards to the DPRK in the Olympics does not give justice to the situation and those affected by it, whether it be North Korean citizens living in abject poverty or South Korean citizens living with the constant threat of war. Granted, while it is important to ensure the safety of the games, this act paired with the pro-dialogue and anti-security rhetoric of the Moon administration seems to neglect all those whose lives have been harmed by the wickedness of the North Korean regime.

In the past, Moon and his extremely leftwing base have made statements accusing the US of being over involved in talks between the Koreas, and in some cases, have even suggested that the US should remove all military presence in the region. These sentiments paired with the recent events at the Olympics signal towards a new position by the Moon administration that dangerously devalues South Korea’s own national security. Ultimately, South Korea, and the international community for that matter, must not forget the anti-democratic and evil nature of North Korea.

By naively neglecting the many atrocities committed by North Korea, we not only fail to do justice to those who have died

and been harmed at the hands of Kim’s regime, but also detract from South Korea’s own national dignity and increase our own vulnerability to a more deadly attack by the North.

Furthermore, not only does this unified marching neglect the barbarity of Kim’s regime, but it also does a great injustice to South Korean athletes competing in the games. These athletes have trained their whole lives with the dream of representing their own nation in the Olympics, only to carry a flag that is not even their own. Not to mention that this Olympics could be the only opportunity for many of these athletes to represent South Korea on this international level. One of the core foundations of the Olympics certainly is peace, yet another value that is often overlooked is the value of national pride and patriotism. Instead of being allowed to express their love for their country by marching under their own flag in a home Olympic games, South Korean athletes were forced to stand under a joint Korean flag, one half of which represented the anti-democratic and violent DPRK. Athletes who have worked their lives to represent South Korea, a nation that promotes democracy, free speech, and peace, should not have to march under a flag that also represents the complete antithesis of those values. More specifically, South Koreans on the joint women’s hockey team were unfairly paired with North Korean athletes, many of whom could not even qualify on merit alone. In fact, only two North Korean athletes, the figure skating pair of Ryom Tae-ok and Kim Ju-sik, qualified based on merit, while the Olympic committee made exceptions for all other North Korean athletes to compete. In the end,

these underqualified North Korean athletes only took away time on the ice from more qualified South Koreans. Nothing is more special than being able to represent your nation on an international stage, especially if it is in an Olympics hosted in your own home country. Ultimately, the joint marching deprived South Korean athletes of that privilege and even worse, forced them to stand under a flag not representative of their own values of democracy and freedom, but rather symbolic of the North’s repressive regime.

Even more ridiculously, in initial talks between the Koreas, both sides agreed that fans should be pressured to cheer for each other’s nation in addition to their own. In exchange for North Korean fans cheering for South Korean athletes, South Korean fans would in turn be heavily encouraged to cheer for the North.

Needless to say, these provisions are absolutely ridiculous and play only to Kim’s own ego, not to mention that North Korean fans hardly cheered for South Korean athletes once the games actually started.

South Korean citizens should attend the Olympics rooting for their own nation and its democratic values. On the other hand, they should not be forced to root and cheer for athletes representing their anti-democratic, oppressive enemy.

On a more global political scale as well, the joint marching only encourages North Korea’s barbaric and oppressive nature by letting Kim believe that he can get what he wants by holding violent threats over the South and the rest of the world. The last time South Korea hosted an Olympics in 1988, North Korea attempted to wreak havoc on the games by plotting to blow up a South Korean plane.

While intended to explode upon arrival in Seoul, the bomb accidentally detonated early during the plane’s flight, killing all 115 passengers. Having now developed additional methods of destruction, most notably the rapid expansion of a nuclear program but also including a large arsenal of chemical weapons, North Korea now has an even greater means of threatening violent action. Ultimately, while placating to the every desire of Kim may work as a short term solution to preventing attacks, as demonstrated through the work done

by Moon and the Olympics committee to accommodate the North’s participation, over time, these types of policies which

have become commonplace of Moon’s administration will only lead to South Korea’s increased vulnerability and lead Kim to believe in violent threatening as a way to get what he wants. The minute that Kim sees his threats working is the minute that South Korea becomes vulnerable to attack and begins losing its own national dignity.

A Southern compliance with Kim’s violent actions and remarks would only encourage him to continue military escalation, whether that be through more missile tests, or in the worst case, an impulsive attack on South Korea itself.

Among the South Korean public, there is also great concern that the Olympics could be used as a tool in Kim’s larger propaganda machine. As quoted in the New York Times, Kim-Tae-yon, a 21 year old media studies student, expressed his concerns as to whether or not “any of [South Korea’s] efforts would be a step towards unification [or whether South Korea] could very well just be used for North Korean propaganda.” More specifically, another provision of the deal between Moon and Kim proposed the arrangement of a visit to Pyongyang by President Moon. Many South Korean conservatives have also expressed concerns that Moon’s visit to Pyongyang could also be spun into propaganda. What this propaganda would specifically look like is unclear, yet Kim has so greatly conditioned the people of North Korea that any twisting of the event

could be used as effective brainwashing.

Perhaps Moon’s visit could be spun as the South’s acknowledgment of ‘North Korea’s greatness’, or most likely, a recognition of North Korea as a legitimate state. Regardless, when weighed against the slim likelihood of real dialogue taking place, the risk of actively contributing to the North’s propaganda machine presents far more harms than potential benefits, only encouraging Kim’s continual suppression of the North Korean people’s freedom of thought and expression.

Ultimately, while the image of North and South Korean athletes marching under a unified Korean flag is an inspiring one, it also is one that presents so many other problems and harms. The status of Korean relations on the peninsula has remained largely stagnant for the last 60 years, despite the South’s continual devotion to dialogue, and so to think of the Olympics as a way of furthering dialogue with an irrational, uncooperative, and ultimately violent North Korean regime is truly wishful thinking. No matter, regardless of whether you believe in peaceful negotiation, increased sanctions, or military action as the solution to the Korean crisis, no solution should prioritize placating to Kim over protecting the interest of South Korea’s own citizens and national security.

21

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Underappreciated, but Successful

By Leo Poggi ’20

A

s promised, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law before Christmas of 2017. The new legislation includes many new policies that keeps more money in the hands of hard-working Americans and simplifies their tax filing.

First, the Act roughly doubles the standard deduction to $12,000 for a single taxpayer and $24,000 for joint filings. For federal income tax, there are certain things that qualify a person for tax deductions, such as charitable donations and medical expenses. These deductions reduce one’s taxable income, which, in turn, lowers income tax. These deductions can either be itemized, which means that they must be listed off one by one on a tax form, or one can claim the standard deduction, a lump sum. H&R Block lists the three biggest benefits of claiming the standard deduction: “[It] allows you a deduction even if you have no expenses that qualify for claiming itemized deductions, eliminates the need to itemize deductions, like medical expenses and charitable donations, and lets you avoid keeping records and receipts of your expenses in case you’re audited by the IRS.” About 70 percent of Americans claim the standard deduction already, and doubling it will only increase this number. Doubling the standard deduction alone massively simplifies tax filing for millions of Americans. Moreover, the personal exemption, which allowed a person to deduct a certain amount for themself and number of dependents, is now incorporated into the standard deduction. This simplifies tax filing even more for many, many Americans.

Additional simplification measures include lowering

state and local tax deductions and capping the mortgage interest deduction. The new measure caps off the state and local tax deduction at $10,000. This means that people in high tax states and localities will have to pay more federal income tax than they previously did. However, this is only fair. People should not be paying more taxes than others simply because of a geographical difference. Why should people facilitate others’ choice to live in a certain area? On that note, the Act also lowers the cap on mortgage interest deduction, meaning people can deduct less regardless of having to pay mortgage interest payments. Again, fundamentally, people should not have to facilitate others’ choice to purchase a house. It is unfair for people to pay fewer taxes simply because they chose to buy a house or live in a certain area. The new tax law makes taxes simpler and fairer.

At this point, it may appear that the new tax law has only eliminated tax deductions. However, this is untrue. The new measure actually keeps a number of important deductions, including medical cost deductions and student loan interest deductions. Medical cost deductions are necessary because they are unpredictable and unavoidable. This is a deduction only for massive medical bills, which must account for at least 10 percent of someone’s gross income to qualify for the deduction. These huge medical costs take a serious toll on the victims. Student loan interest deductions are important because, ultimately, students going to college is good for society.

Society demands new thinkers with higher education, so these educational endeavors should be supported by the government. The new law also increases the Child Tax Credit to up to $2000 per

Only about five percent of Americans will see a tax increase of over $10 under this new legislation. On the other hand, 80 percent of all Americans will see a tax cut.

22

Left: Carolyn Ren’s opposing opinion is depicted in her cartoon

eligible child. There is a difference between a credit and a deduction: a tax credit directly lowers the amount of taxes that one must pay, while a deduction lowers one’s taxable income. They both, in effect, lower taxes. The dependent exemption, which is very similar to the aforementioned personal exemption, is eliminated and included in the Child Tax Credit under the new law. This further simplifies tax filing because it consolidates child-related credits, exemptions, and deductions into one entity. The increase in this credit is important because, again, children are fundamentally good for society; they are the next generation of the military and workforce, and they will carry on our American values. Therefore, the government should recognize and respond to the massive financial burden of raising a child. Lastly, the new law adds deductions for small businesses. Many small business incomes are taxed as their owners’ income. So, to support small business, the new law allows special tax deductions for small business owners. This deduction gets smaller as the owner’s business income gets larger to prevent high-income earners from using this deduction as a loophole.

One very notable accomplishment of the Act is its repeal of Obamacare’s Individual Mandate. The Individual Mandate was the government’s requirement that all people purchase either private health insurance or Obamacare. If you did not purchase health insurance, you would be fined. The government should not require its citizens to make or not make any purchases. This Mandate was a violation of Americans’ freedom, and its repeal is just another accomplishment for this new law.

On top of all these positive changes, the Act also provides tax cuts. Contrary to what you have heard from the media, the reform act cuts taxes across the board. According to the Tax Policy Center, “Compared to current law, taxes would fall for all income groups on average in 2018, increasing overall average after-tax income by 2.2 percent.” Additionally, only about 5 percent

of Americans will see a tax increase of over $10 under this new legislation. On the other hand, 80 percent of all Americans will see a tax cut. Now, I would like to clarify some rumors you may have heard. The mainstream media claimed that the bottom percentiles will see no change. To quote the Washington Post: “Among those in the bottom 20 percent of earners — taxpayers earning less than $25,400 — only half will see a tax break. Most others in this group will see no change.” While this is true, it is because 43 percent of Americans pay absolutely no income tax, and many of these people fall into the bottom 20 percent of earners. So, yes, half of the bottom 20 percent will have no change—they will still pay nothing. The media has also espoused that the rich see most benefits of the new law. This is true, but only because the rich account for the vast majority of tax revenue. According to CNBC, “The top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes,” and according to Politifact, the top one percent account for 43 percent of tax revenue. So, it is no wonder why the rich will see a big cut: they pay far more than their fair share of income tax. These changes make the tax brackets fairer overall.

So, what are some of the major accomplishments of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? • Doubling the standard deduction • Lowering deductions for state and local taxes and mortgage interest payments • Keeping other, important deductions • Increasing the Child Tax Credit • Protecting small businesses • Repealing Obamacare’s Individual Mandate • Cutting taxes for all income groups All of these actions make filing taxes simpler and fairer, and keep more money in the hands of those who earned it.

23

Trump and Big Oil

By Carolyn Ren ’19

I

n 2016, the Trump Administration opened more than 10 million acres of resource rich land in Alaska to drilling.

Last month, in President Trump’s 2018 State of the Union address, he once again outlined his plans for continuing massive subsidies to the fossil fuel industry while gutting bedrock environmental policies in order to pave the way for fossil fuel dependent infrastructure proposals. This month, Trump acknowledged that he was in support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) after receiving a call from one of his big oil friends; although Trump did not specify the name, it is very likely that this “friend” was one of these industry executives who had written sizable checks to his inauguration: Christopher Cline, founder of coal company Foresight Reserves LLC; J Clifford Forrest, president of Rosebud Mining Company; Hushang Ansary, a longtime oil executive and businessman; and Kelcy Warren, CEO of the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline.

All of the aforementioned moves — key parts of Trump’s energy strategy — were billed as the President making good on his promise to return the U.S to “energy dominance.” Although appealing that the President is attempting to make the U.S. a self-reliant energy hegemon, Trump’s strategy is likely to cause more harm than good. Trump’s proposal will damage public-land resources that millions of Americans utilize, causing rural communities, American taxpayers, and the future gener24

ation to eventually pay the price. According to Janet Redman, U.S. Policy Director with Oil Change International, “Calling this disaster of a plan simply an infrastructure plan doesn’t do the nightmare justice.

It’s a Make Big Oil Happy plan. It’s a More Climate Disasters plan. It’s a Taxpayer Dollars in Oil Executives’ Wallets plan. It’s a Bankrupt Our Communities plan.”

Americans must ask themselves, what’s the rush? If national security and sovereignty are the two main concerns and focus of the Trump agenda, then why not keep the oil and gas reserves in the ground until the U.S. is actually in need of them?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (B.L.M.), global oil and gas supplies are so abundant that these fuels are being produced on less than half of the approximately 27 million acres of public lands under lease to energy companies. Additionally, throughout the 2015 fiscal year, a record 7,950 drilling permits on federal leases were not being used. In the year of 2017, the oil industry bid on less than one-third of the federal acreage offered for lease by the B.L.M., even though the industry identified most of the lands auctioned for energy exploration.

At the same time, according to Professor Mark Squillace from the University of Colorado Law School, federal onshore oil production increased by more than 70 percent from the fiscal year 2006 to 2015, and the number of producing leases on federal land has achieved its all time high.The U.S already has an abundant amount of oil and gas in the ground and oil companies have demonstrated no substantial demand for new leases. As a matter of fact, when the Trump administration made the 10 million acres of land in Alaska available for auction last year, the B.L.M. received only seven bids for land covering 80,000 acres, less than 1% of the area offered by the end of the auction, crystallizing the reality that the U.S. is not in a desperate need to sell federal land for oil drilling in order to obtain an energy dominance among other

countries.

More importantly, if the Trump administration forces the B.L.M. agency to shift its focus from managing public lands for purposes such as protecting wildlife and preserving historic and recreational values to expediting energy development, there will inevitably be fewer safeguards for the environment and fewer acres for public use. Rural communities may suffer significantly if the B.L.M. curtails important priorities such as fire prevention, rangeland improvement, and conservation of wildlife habitat in order to meet the Trump administration’s directive.

Consequently, it has become evident that Trump’s presidency has largely been a win for the oil and gas industry. His push for this “U.S. Energy Dominance” strategy is closely related with his interpersonal ties with oil friends. Environmental regulations have been cut back, and oil companies could soon have unprecedented access to land formerly deemed important to rural communities. Additionally, oil companies received a massive tax cut under the new Republican tax plan. According to Brian Kahn from Earther, "America's treasures are up for sale and the only thing you need to get them is the president's phone number." President Trump’s pursuit of “energy dominance” is likely to increase the sales of oil and gas leases to a certain extent, benefiting speculators and his big oil friends who pay little up front. In order to protect rural communities in the short run and deter the worsening of the effects of climate change, the federal government needs to adjust its “Energy Dominance” strategy. A better approach would be for state legislatures to keep questioning the federal government’s capacity to sell off public land for private profit and develop an overall strategy to not only guide energy development in a direction with fewer conflicts with water and wildlife, but also limit unnecessary energy development programs that pose threats to the wellbeing of American citizens.

Can India Resist China’s Hegemony in Asia?

By Brian Wong ’19

A

ccording to ancient Greek historian Thucydides, when a rising power causes fear in an established power, war is inevitable. This phenomenon is known as the Thucydides trap. Following the catastrophes of the 20th century, nations put a collective effort in escaping the Thucydides’s trap. The tense relations recently between India and China have raised concerns about the possibility of disrupting peace among Asian nations. Although the chance of the outbreak of a full-scale war is still relatively low, the world is curious to see India’s trajectory in becoming another power second to China in Asia.

Recent events have demonstrated India’s tendency to take the route of complete detachment from China. The Doklam military standoff between China and India has made irreparable damages to the countries’ relations. Although the two nations’ leaders have announced mutual disengagement, both sides are far from demilitarization in the region. Troops from both sides still stand by the region in preparation for any military escalation. The two powers are full of suspicion and distrust. Apart from military hostili-

ty, India has shown resentment to China through economic means. India boycotted the “One Belt One road” summit, a China-centered economic project that has gained the participation of more than fifty nations. India’s absence from this monumental project is an affront to China’s image as a leading world power. Through various aspects, India has stood up to its adversary China. Can the Indian government extricate itself from China’s dominion and establish itself as a new dominant power?

India’s economic inferiority presents itself with numerous challenges if they were to contend with China. India’s recent economic plans seem to be implementing initiatives and projects such as the SAGAR or the ASEAN to directly challenge China’s One Belt One Road initiative. It tries to spread its influence in the neighboring countries and pull them away from China’s dominion. The main problem with India’s schemes is their inability to attract nations into their economic alliances.

Although India currently has the fastest growing economy, its market is still much smaller than that of China. India needs

to come up with very appealing pulling factors that will prompt nearby countries to reject China’s intercontinental trading network and join India’s anti-China economic scheme.

Economically, it will be very difficult for India to contend with China. Therefore, India should instead appeal to cultural or political factors that might draw nations into its alliance. One sentiment shared across all South Asian nations is fear and jealousy towards China.

China’s island building projects in the South China Sea has inspired anger in these nations. However, due to their economic dependence on China, they silently give in. The United States’ recent involvement in the South China Sea gives these nations new hope in gaining more bargaining power. With the support of a major power, India can lead these South Asian states in opposition to the ambitious Chinese government. India might not bring as much economic benefits as China does, but it can restore national pride to these countries and impede the Chinese government from its ruthless expansion projects in the South China Sea.

Why Nations Fail

By David Vega ’20

I

n order to ensure effective, sustainable economic and societal growth, a nation must develop inclusive institutions. In contrast, countries that protect extractive institutions will fail to ensure such growth and development. Institutions, either inclusive or extractive, can be broken up into two major subcategories: political and economic.

Inclusive political institutions refer to systems that permit the population to engage in the political decision-making of the country. These systems also mandate pluralism so as to uphold the rule of law rather than rule by the whims of individuals in power. The most prevalent inclusive political institutions are representative democracies. On the contrary, extractive political institutions, generally, protect an unelected few from losing their power.

This select few, through extractive political institutions, have the full, unchecked capacity of exploiting their populations.

Known systems like this include monarchies and authoritarian dictatorships.

Directly linked with political institutions are the economic institutions that drive the economic prosperity of a nation. Inclusive economic institutions provide incentive structures to the larger population and permit creative destruction and innovation to take place. With creative destruction and innovation come changes and new distributions in wealth.

Extractive economic institutions disallow such innovation because of the power challenge it presents to those with authority, who wish to maintain their exclusive access on the wealth and power of a country. As a result, extractive economic institutions may allow for economic growth, like in the Soviet Union in the mid-20th century, but their exclusiveness and lack of ability to innovate lead these countries

to eventually experience decreased levels of growth and economic prosperity for a broadband of the population.

In the southern region of Africa, the nation of Botswana stands as an outlier. Following its independence from Britain in 1966, Botswana was one of the poorest nations in the world and was surrounded by colonial governments in modern-day Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Namibia. Upon independence, political power in Botswana was not beholden to an elite group of individuals. Therefore, Botswana was able to take advantage of their independence and established inclusive institutions in the form of an expanded right to vote, enforced property rights, and open markets under the presidency of Seretse Khama. In use of its resources, primarily diamonds, the early Botswana government ensured that the mineral resources were to be vested in the nation, not the tribes that previously settled the areas with the mineral resources. Since the establishment of inclusive institutions, Botswana has undergone the third highest level of growth in GDP per capita PPP, has the least corrupt government in sub-Saharan Africa according to Transparency International, and has the most secure democracy in sub-Saharan Africa according to the Economist.

In contrast, Botswana’s neighbor, Zimbabwe, has experienced highly extractive institutions. Due to similarities in the geography, natural resources, and ethnicity, it is clear that the staggering inequality between the two nations was not pre-determined. Extractive institutions were created by the elite whites that were in control when Zimbabwe was a colony, Rhodesia. After becoming independent from Britain in 1980, Robert Mugabe, unlike Khama, maintained these institutions

that were designed to extract wealth and power from the majority of the population.

Mugabe was able to maintain his authority by rigging elections for his party and consequently publicizing most industries in Zimbabwe, through which he stocked the positions with supporters of his party.

This restricted dissenting classes of people from engaging in the market and expanding their wealth, and therefore, influence.

In 1995, Mugabe’s popularity was mostly tarnished; however, his capture on the political process allowed him to secure his position as well as the parliamentary through coercive tactics alongside fraud.

In a combination of extractive political and economic institutions, Mugabe was able to hamper both people’s means and incentives to invest and innovate.

Throughout the world, advancements have been yielded because of extractive institutions. In the Ottoman Empire, edicts prohibited Muslims from printing in Arabic. The prohibition of print limited the potential for increased literacy rates, which help the spread of ideas and communication. Both of which could lead to new ways of economic growth; however, it would also subvert the power of the elites, who controlled the flow of information.

Likewise, the Habsburgs held a strong, absolutist rule over the Holy Roman Empire (H.R.E.). The Habsburgs had no interest in giving up their political and economic power. Hence, they held steadfast to a feudal order and serfdom. Habsburg opposition to the development of industry and the construction of railways was based out of preventing people from centralizing and communicating. Francis II, emperor of the H.R.E., responded to a plan to build railways throughout his empire with, “No, no, I will have nothing to do with it, lest the revolution might come into the country.”

27

On Syria and the Question of National Security

By Meredith Moran ’19

I

n early February, the budget finalized by Congress and signed

by President Trump raised military funding to over $1.4 trillion for the next two years. This figure exceeds caps that have been in place for several years. However, according to Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, the agreement gives the Pentagon the “budget certainty it needs to begin the process of rebuilding the military.” The Pentagon has struggled to sustain a military presence in multiple corners of the world, and is now dealing with renewed threats from Russia, North Korea and Syria.

Our military has the important task of defending America’s national security. Nevertheless, the current budget issues and broad demands on the Pentagon should prompt us to reconsider how we employ our military. The U.S. is still fighting the longest war in America’s history in Afghanistan. What began in 2001 as a campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda after 9/11 continues today against further resistance. Even the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 did not end U.S. presence in Afghanistan. America’s second major campaign has been in Iraq, where thousands of U.S. troops remain over a decade longer than originally expected. In neither case are the countries particularly stable, even after most of the 21st century and up to $5 trillion was spent attempting to eradicate any resistance.

More recently, Syria has been in the spotlight. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson outlined a policy in a speech for “a stable, unified, and independent Syria, free of terrorist threats and free of weapons of mass destruction.” As previously noted, this has not been the case as a result of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can we, the American public, expect to see the same prescription for a long-term presence in Syria, too?

This leads to a far-reaching debate about why and how we should deploy the American military. It is generally agreed that the U.S. employs military force when her national security is directly threatened. What constitutes a threat, though, is a broad grey area of opinion. Looking at Syria, in particular, these issues are highlighted and should give us pause.

First, Bashar al-Assad is a reprehensible dictator who rules with an iron fist and has slaughtered many of Syria’s citizens.

28

The U.S., under Trump and Tillerson, proposed a regime change from Bashar al-Assad to a democratic government, a condition of a stable, independent, and unified Syria. However, Syria does not have the capabilities to attack America and the only threat it poses to Americans is to the several thousand U.S. soldiers on the ground advising opposition forces.

Second, elements of ISIS and al Qaeda still take refuge in parts of Syria. These loosely organized terrorist cells continue to advocate for the destruction of America and have shown great resolve. Nevertheless, with security measures put in place over the last 15 years, ISIS and al Qaeda today are more of a regional threat and should be combated by countries in the region that have far more at stake. Unfortunately, regime change in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya has led to power vacuums filled by extremist groups rather than democratic forces. Therefore, maintaining a U.S. military presence has only rallied radical Islamists.

Third, since Russia has inserted itself in the situation in support of Assad, the U.S. runs the very real risk of direct conflict with Russia, a nation with the nuclear capability to destroy the United States. While it isn’t prudent for the U.S. to back down from Russia, is it worth risking confrontation over a country like Syria that does not pose a direct threat to America’s national security?

The costs to the American country for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have come in the lives of soldiers, strain on the military, and trillions of dollars. Rather than face the same outcome in Syria, it is time for an adjustment in strategy, dialing back the conflicts in which we are engaged in the likes of Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Niger and Syria. We have bigger threats with the likes of China, Russia, and North Korea that must be addressed. We can still achieve national security, and even pursue our interests indirectly through diplomatic means, by being very selective about where and when we exert power. We need to give our nation time to review and rebuild our military, and refresh the discussion over how to best defend our national security.

Editors-in-Chief Nicholas Fleisher ’18 Aadi Kulkarni ’18 Robert Doar ’18

Art Director

Tatr Assakul ’18

Domestic Editors Michael Li ’18 Annabelle Burns ’18

International Editors Ian Gill ’19 Tatiana Whitman ’18

Graphics Editor Carolyn Ren ’19

Faculty Advisor Mr. Adam Lang

30

Message From The Editors Esteemed Readers, We are proud to present you with our third issue of the 2017-2018 academic year.

While a diverse topics are written on herein, you will notice that this issue features a focus on the relationship between China and The United States. This relationship is the defining rivalry of our times. It is only appropriate that this issue of The Review feature extensive coverage on a topic that looms constantly on the periphery.

As always, we encourage you to engage with these articles and writers beyond just reading their work. If you find a piece that you disagree with, reach out to the writer and have a discussion. If you find a piece that you agree with, share it with your friends and family. There is no better way to strengthen our knowledge than by reading, debating, and discussing topics important to our lives today.

Finally, we would like to leave the community with a message regarding our publication and mission: The Hotchkiss Review is the premier publication on campus for well-refined, diverse political opinions. Given our publication frequency, editing capabilities, and design, we truly believe that we are best positioned to publish real pieces about issues outside of Hotchkiss.

Eternally in the Service of Freedom, The Hotchkiss Review Editorial Board, Vol. III

31

Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas